Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post

    And now the Brandon Jennings hype. Yeah you can see the potential and hopefully he taps into it, but what if he doesn't? What if he never gets it?

    I understand wanting to gamble and wanting to make a big splash, and I wouldn't be upset with Jennings as the pick, but let's keep a level heads about things, but the Pacers can't afford to busted at #13 this year.

    Not saying Jennings will be a bust, but let's not put all your eggs in one basket full of potential
    There actually isn't a time better then now, in this draft, to go for a boom or bust player. You can't afford to draft a bust in a deep, strong draft were every one around you is improving. In a draft like this a team can settle for the "sure things" and really not improve the team much if at all.

    Drafting a bust in a draft like this doesn't hurt a team nearly as much as drafting a bust in a stronger draft.

    But if the guy you draft ends up being anything close to a star....in a draft like this...you improve your team immensely. Almost every other team in the draft will be adding role players at best.

    It all comes down to whats stronger...the risk or the reward?

    Jennings, in this draft....the reward is much, much stronger.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

      Somebody mentioned Kyle Taber.... 4th yr senior... all academic... c'mon
      "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
      Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

        How many people have actually seen Jennings play ?? In a competitive game ??

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

          I like the point guards we have now, and don't want to see the pick wasted on
          bringing in a rookie PG unless it will be used as a piece for a trade to bring in
          what we really need. And that need is some defensive power in the frontcourt.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
            How many people have actually seen Jennings play ?? In a competitive game ??
            This x100milliontrillion

            Also, what does anyone really know about this guy? What kind of attitude does he have? He's obviously isn't the brightest Crayola in the 128 box after trying three or four times to get into Arizona and not being able to make it. Is he the kind of guy who can come here and keep the straight and narrow?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

              even if I have not seen this guy play I rather have a healthy Jennings that a guy with messed up knees like Blair
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                Just like you'd rather not have a guy with messed up knees like Granger?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                  He has potential.

                  I like confidence.

                  I wonder about off-court issues and the fact he seems to like to be the center of attention.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                    Originally posted by Pacers View Post
                    Just like you'd rather not have a guy with messed up knees like Granger?
                    that is different, according to the reports Blair does not even has the ACL in his knees how is he going to play 82 games like that?
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                      Needless to say, I'd be thrilled if we got Jennings at 13.

                      I'm still pretty new to the boards but I figured this was something I had to comment on. I can understand being cautious about taking him. There's something about him that makes me worry he'll be too out of control, and I still wonder just how "mature" he'll become. Being coachable is another thing. Didn't he start doing something different than the scouts were asking at a work out a little while ago? Granted he eventually did the play, but it was definately something that caught my attention. It makes you wonder about his ability to play in a set system vs. his every man for himself solo play. One last thing on this- if we end up getting him, how do you all think Jennings will play under a guy like Obie? Would this kid need a "players coach" to really get him started? Or could Obie slightly fall under that category of coaching?

                      Having said all that, I still really want Jennings on this team. I think his natural ability and instinct sets him apart from the rest. It also gives him a huge ceiling for potential in my opinion- one that I think he can at least get close to achieving. Basically I think the good outweighs any potential "bad" with this kid. I'll be pumped if Jennings puts a Pacers hat on come draft day.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                        I think Jrue is going to be a bigger bust threat than Jennings. When Jrue got discouraged this year, he disappeared. When he got tore up by Curry in NY's workouts, he disappeared.

                        Jennings has done the opposite when face with opposition.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                          Jennings is the riskiest pick in this draft, but due to the lack of star talent at #13, I'm on board and willing to roll the dice. I like guys like Lawson, Maynor, Hansborough, etc - but I think they will only be good/average players - not stars.

                          If each player actually lives up to their potential - my top 5 draft board is as follows.

                          Griffin
                          Evans
                          Rubio
                          Jennings
                          Holiday

                          I would love to move up to #6 if we could land Evans. He's going to be the best guard from this draft.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                            Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
                            Jennings is the riskiest pick in this draft, but due to the lack of star talent at #13, I'm on board and willing to roll the dice. I like guys like Lawson, Maynor, Hansborough, etc - but I think they will only be good/average players - not stars.

                            If each player actually lives up to their potential - my top 5 draft board is as follows.

                            Griffin
                            Evans
                            Rubio
                            Jennings
                            Holiday

                            I would love to move up to #6 if we could land Evans. He's going to be the best guard from this draft.
                            Yeah, these are my feelings on Jennings also. I think the only way we get another star is the "high risk/high reward" route. We will never be in position, nor do I want to be in a position (50 to 60 losses in a season) to draft a college star.

                            As for moving up, there isn't anyone outside of Griffin worth giving up the assets to move, IMO.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                              Originally posted by Pacers View Post
                              This x100milliontrillion

                              Also, what does anyone really know about this guy? What kind of attitude does he have? He's obviously isn't the brightest Crayola in the 128 box after trying three or four times to get into Arizona and not being able to make it. Is he the kind of guy who can come here and keep the straight and narrow?
                              Here's the thing, if we are going to use this argument about how many times we have seen someone play...let's be serious. Most of us have not watched the majority of the players in the draft more than a few times. We make observations based on what we read from people who have scouted them, what little we have seen out of them, and any other information we can find on them.

                              I like Jennings, I'd like for us to take him if he is on the board at #13. Does that mean I don't have concerns? Of course not. As I stated earlier though, you would have a pretty hard time convincing me that this kid doesn't have a higher upside than the other potential targets at #13.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: OFFICIAL WE WANT BRANDON JENNINGS THREAD

                                I like Jennings, but I am not going to jump on anything yet. I don't want to just pick a guy, then we not pick them and I end up resenting the player.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X